Another grassroots approach from Al Gore

After casually perusing the field in the 1988 democrat presidential primary, I admit to thinking Tennessean Al Gore might have 'been the man'. It didn't last long.

After watching his speeches and debates, he soon began to grate on me. One phrase in particular was annoying, "a grassroots approach". Nothing wrong with the phrase itself, he just kept saying it. And saying it.

It was more than campaign buzz-word burnout. At times Gore seemed an empty suit, and that memory lingered on until the time he ran again in 2000. The "alpha male" episode and a few other embarrassing instances of "over-handling" didn't paint the image of presidential leadership, nor were they very "grassroots-ish". So, there you have my biases upfront.

Gore's latest attack on Bush is fine--as Americans we should welcome debate, even if it hurts. Some of his bullet points are inarguably correct, and I'm not against a Congressional hearing unless it damages ongoing field operations regards national security. As he said, this war may be open-ended and civil rights must not be tossed in the trash.

The problem was the speech was delivered by Gore, a man with a Paul Bunyanesqe axe to grind.

Gore said there is still much to learn about the domestic surveillance program, but that he already has drawn a conclusion about its legality.

"What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and insistently," he said.

Would that be guilty until proven innocent? Sounds almost like he's ready to abandon due process and just get the rope.

As McClellan pointed out, the Clintons went after Aldrich Ames without a warrant in the 90s due to national security concerns. Bush has not set precendent and it's unclear whether his actions were illegal. We have no evidence his NSA program was undertaken for anything other than noble reasons, yet Gore's hyperbolic speech suggested his actions were nefarious and the republic was on the verge of dictatorship.

The Commander-in-Chief has a responsibility to protect the country from threats both foreign and domestic. The democrats view Bush as the threat. Such strategy hasn't won them any recent elections, yet this fact seems to strangely intensify their efforts.